only 24 friends on facebook?
It's probably true I have the lowest count of "friends" on Facebook one could have.
On my public Facebook page I have 800+ likes for whatever that's worth. On YouTube I have 2,200+ subscribers, again for whatever that's worth.
For my personal FB profile however, the total number is 24. It used to be a lot higher, but a while back I just cleaned it right out.
Do I yearn to have many hundreds or thousands of "friends" on my personal FB profile? No. It's just not something I really give a crap about.
And as it turns out, most other people using FB have pretty much peaked and stopped adding "friends" because... there's really no point.
What I've personally noticed is that there are basically 3 types of FB users. The sub-100, the 350 and the over-1,000. This is in reference to how many "friends" they have on the system.
Sub-100s are people like myself who use FB, add in a few people and then just kinda let it sit there.
The 350 are the type who add friends of friends of friends. And for whatever reason, at 350 (or slightly over) is where the contact count stops.
The over-1,000 types are people who in all honesty should have a public FB fan page but don't. Nobody has over a thousand close friends, yet these people use a personal FB profile to add in everyone anyway. All I can say is that they're missing out on the benefits of having a fan page where you're allowed to do more and control more (such as targeting posts by age/location/other demographic, more scheduling options, and so on.)
Why is Facebook still being used?
Mainly because nothing better has come along to replace it.
Most people in my experience use Facebook for one thing - as an address book. The only social stuff they do on it is on fan pages now because that's where it makes the most sense. For personal profiles, not-so much. Hardly ever, actually.
The only thing I can see replacing Facebook would be the absolute polar opposite of it. Something dirt simple and ultra-minimal. And no, I'm not talking about Twitter because Twitter sucks.
If I were to design a social network, my #1 priority would be the address book feature since that's what most people use social media for. I would purposely design it like an old-school Buddy List from the AOL Instant Messenger back when it was popular. Just a stupid-simple thing that's one list you can organize however you like.
There would be no such thing as fan pages on my social network. Every profile on signup would only show 3 things initially. The username, the avatar image and the date of signup. That's it. That's as private as you can get. On edit of the profile, there's a lot more you could make public, but only if you wanted to.
Every signup would have a probationary period of 72 hours. This means you can sign up, but can't post anything until 72 hours has passed. Why do this? It prevents spam, and it works.
As far as what can be posted on profiles, it can be anything as long as it's text. No images, no videos.
Post length for status updates would be limited to 250 characters. However, there would also be a blogging feature if you wanted to wrote more long-form stuff.
There's a lot more I would do, but the point is that it truly would be a Facebook alternative. An anti-Facebook, if you will. I wouldn't just go out and create another FB, because nobody wants that.
Best ZOOM R8 tutorial book
highly rated, get recording quick!
More articles to check out
- The classiest little Casio, AQ230
- Old internet humor has not aged well
- Where can a middle aged guy get plain sneakers these days?
- An HSS guitar I can actually recommend
- The 1,000 year disc, M-DISC
- The watch you buy when your smartwatch breaks
- This is the cheapest way to get guitar picks
- This is the Squier I'd buy had I not just bought one
- Plywood might be one of the best electric guitar tonewoods
- Why isn't The Whoopee Boys a cult classic?